At least in the case of HP, this travel ban is blanket (i.e., not
based on destination) - though there was an earlier ban (probably
a month old) for ~ten countries in the middle east.
bt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com> [mailto:ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: pwg at pwg.org> Subject: Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
>>>> First of all, thanks to Harry for putting up with all
> this...you probably had other things you wanted to do this week.
>> That being said, it seems the "raging debate" genie is out of
> the bottle.
>> I am disappointed we had to cancel DC, but agree it was
> necessary. It would be interesting, as Bill suggests, to
> know whether no-travel policies are blanket or based on destination.
>> For various philosophical reasons, I would be disappointed if
> we re-scheduled away from NYC. In addition, it is one of my
> favorite places to go.
>> I guess the only reason for a quick discussion on Provo is
> because of ticket change rules. If someone can push back on
> AA and get them to relax their policy, then we should be able
> to leave the schedule as it was, for now, and discuss
> proposed changes with less haste.
>> As for this spring, under the circumstances I think a May
> meeting would be hard to pull off. The argument that we
> should keep five meetings is a good one, but I think we may
> have to compromise this time.
>> I favor a meeting in June, and any of those weeks looks good
> to me. Speaking just for me personally, I would keep it in
> Vancouver, but obviously not if that would hurt attendance.
>> All that being said, I will support and thank Harry for
> whatever action he deems best.
>> E.
>>>> ------------------------------------------
> Elliott Bradshaw
> Director, Software Engineering
> Oak Technology Imaging Group
> 781 638-7534
>>>>>>don at lexmark.co>> m To: Harry Lewis
> <harryl at us.ibm.com>
> Sent by: cc:
>thrasher at lexmark.com, pwg at pwg.org>owner-pwg at pwg. Subject: Re:
> PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging
> org PWG schedule
>>>>>> 03/26/2003
>> 02:47 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not leave December as Provo and have people schedule for
> that rather than move everything around? That WAS the plan.
>> **********************************************
> Don Wright don at lexmark.com>> Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org>> Director, Alliances & Standards
> Lexmark International
> 740 New Circle Rd
> Lexington, Ky 40550
> 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
> **********************************************
>>>>>> Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 03/26/2003 02:43:32 PM
>> Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org>>> To: thrasher at lexmark.com> cc: pwg at pwg.org> Subject: Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
>>> We can try (to nail the next meeting quickly). This is why I
> posted the scheduling guide. For those who need to reschedule
> flights to avoid penalty... my suggestion is to book into
> Provo in October. I don't believe rescheduling the entire
> year is feasible.
>> If we churn on this (which it looks like we are) ... some
> people will be hosed.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>thrasher at lexmark.com> Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org> 03/26/2003 12:02 PM
>> To: pwg at pwg.org> cc:
> Subject: Re: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG
> schedule
>>>> Since there are time constraints for the near term, can we
> just get the very next F2F meeting scheduled ASAP and look at
> further re-arrangements at that F2F...????
>> For me...using keywords instead of numbers.......:)
>> June 2-6 (preferable)
> June 16-20 (acceptable)
>> Location options (no preference)... for either week.
>> JT
>>>> "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>@pwg.org on
> 03/26/2003 01:54:34 PM
>> Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org>>> To: "Harry Lewis" <harryl at us.ibm.com>, <pwg at pwg.org>
> cc:
> Subject: PWG> RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
>>> Harry,
>> What's the fundamental goal here? To revisit the schedule
> for all future meetings in the year, or just up to (but not
> including) October?
>> Is there any reason not to try to "squeeze in" four [newly
> scheduled] meetings into the remainder of the year? [For
> example, June 2-6, August 4-9, October 6-10 (why not still
> hold this in New York?), and December 1-5 seem reasonable
> goals for future meetings. Eight week separation on average,
> but still allowing four face-to-face meetings for the rest of
> the year.
>> Given that this organization has already cut down this year's
> schedule of meetings to only five, I would think that we
> should avoid reducing it to four if we can.
>> Any thoughts?
>> lee
> ===========================
> Lee Farrell
> Canon Development Americas
> 110 Innovation Drive
> Irvine, CA 92612
> (949) 856-7163 - voice
> (949) 856-7510 - fax
>lee.farrell at cda.canon.com> ===========================
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: pwg-announce at pwg.org> Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Rearranging PWG schedule
>>>> To recover from cancelation of D.C. I've prepared a
> scheduling guide.
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/DCRecovery.pdf
As you can see, two weeks in June appear to be the best alternatives. Please
identify any conflicts / alignments I have missed. We need to settle on the
next meeting date quickly so people can reschedule their canceled flights.
People flying AA seem to have the shortest amount of time and we may not be
able to reschedule within their 2 day deadline! In this case I recommend
these people reschedule for the Provo meeting in October.
PLEASE HOLD DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC ON pwg at pwg.org NOT pwg-announce!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
(See attached file: C.htm)
#### C.htm has been removed from this note on March 26, 2003 by Harry Lewis
(See attached file: C.htm)
(See attached file: C.htm)